US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://www.politicususa.com/colorado-ob ... paign.html

[pErvinalia]

I've ignored the rest of your reply, because it is the same old same old... But couldn't pass this one up:

And, aren't corporate organizations part of the democratic process? I mean, they are part of the country, and they have a stake in what happens, don't they?

Democracy is about people, not corporations. There's a hint in the Latin or Greek root of the word.

Of course, and corporations are associations of people.

Way to fail. Militaries, likewise, are associations of people. Are you now going to suggest that militaries should be part of the democratic process? They should be able to stand armed at polling booths with signs "suggesting" how people should vote, yes? No. Because that would be an incredibly dumb thing to suggest, just like allowing corporations to influence political decisions and voting (via funding false election advertising and running scare campaigns). You are so butthurt that someone would dare criticise the US, that you are blinding yourself to the blindingly obvious problems of your political system. You have so much hatred for Obama and the democrats, that you are totally blinded to the failings of the Republicans that you support. Your silly little "Hey! What's that over there? ------->" games are transparent for all to see. Asking for evidence that the sun rises, when you 1 - should be able to see it with your own eyes; and 2 - you could EASILY research this yourself; just shows how dishonest your intentions are here. And as for your "I'm not a Republican or a Democrat" bullshit... don't make us laugh. It's clear what party you support. How stupid do you think we are? You'll probably ask me for evidence that the sun rises, but i'm not going to give it. You as well as everyone else knows that you've been bitching about (to paraphrase) 'the democrats being in government for more than 50% of the time over the last 100 years (or whatever timeframe you mentioned)' and that lament has been used as a placeholder for all the woes of the American economy (and presumably society).

As i've said before: Debating with you is a waste of time. I won't be wasting that time, other than to provide short rebuttals of your nonsense.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As i've said before: Debating with you is a waste of time. I won't be wasting that time, other than to provide short rebuttals of your nonsense.

He'll a political fundy.

[pErvinalia]

Tide is turning against Obama.
I guess people are starting to figure out he is just an affirmative action baby that was given everything rather than having earned it in his life. I can just imagine the mud hut he'd be living in today if Obama Sr. took him back to Kenya instead. Like the rest of his Kenyan family, except for the two living illegally and on welfare in Massachusetts.

Not that I want to particularly get into a debate about this, but I'll add something in a hope it might prime your thinking on the subject a bit (futile, I know. A racist isn't really going to give a shit about what I am about to say). But have you considered that a person living in a mud hut in Kenya is highly likely to be happier than the 15-20% (or whatever the exact figure is) of your population who live under the poverty line? I know this is a somewhat simplistic statement, and as I said I don't really want to have much of a debate about this, but perhaps it might help you to think a little outside the box.

[Coito ergo sum]

I've ignored the rest of your reply, because it is the same old same old... But couldn't pass this one up:

And, aren't corporate organizations part of the democratic process? I mean, they are part of the country, and they have a stake in what happens, don't they?

Democracy is about people, not corporations. There's a hint in the Latin or Greek root of the word.

Of course, and corporations are associations of people.

Way to fail.

I am correct. You are just flapping your gums wildly.

What are the American Atheists, Inc. or the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc? Associations of people who filed papers with a State to adopt the corporate form, instead of a partnership or some other form.

Militaries, likewise, are associations of people.

Militaries are arms of the government.

Are you now going to suggest that militaries should be part of the democratic process?

No, as I would not suggest that Depart of Labor or the Department of Energy should be part of the process.

They should be able to stand armed at polling booths with signs "suggesting" how people should vote, yes? No. Because that would be an incredibly dumb thing to suggest,

Makes me wonder why you are suggesting it. I certainly haven't, and it doesn't remotely follow from the idea that a corporation, partnership, etc. are associations of people.

just like allowing corporations to influence political decisions and voting (via funding false election advertising and running scare campaigns).

Look -- if corporations can't publish political messages, then we'd have to make the New York Times, Inc. (INCORPORATED) editorial page illegal. And if corporations can't publish political messages, then Moveon.org, Inc. ought to be prohibited from publishing its political messages too. And, if Hooters, Inc. wants to oppose new waitress clothing regulations in the State of X, then they ought to be able to do it, too, shouldn't they? Saying a corporation could not legally publish political messages would mean that Hooters, Inc., or Wolf's Farmers Market, Inc. couldn't publicize their views to explain to the public why they are for or against some political measure.

Your position on this is not well thought out.

You are so butthurt that someone would dare criticise the US,

I criticize the US all the time. I'm not butthurt about it at all. I'm just pointing out where you are not thinking this through clearly. You seem to think "corporation" means only "Bain Capital, Inc." or "Wal-Mart" and you don't like what those corporations stand for, so you say "they aren't people, and they shouldn't be able to publish political opinions." Well, you're not thinking it through, because if "corporations" are legally prohibited from publishing political messages, then so too will other organizations that you may like, like the American Civil Liberties Union, Inc., American Atheists, Inc., People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., Moveon.org, Inc., The DailyKos, Inc., New York Times, Inc., and MSNBC, Inc.

Think it through for a fucking second, man.

that you are blinding yourself to the blindingly obvious problems of your political system.

There you go again with the "your" political system nonsense. Look, you haven't established that other western republics are much different. You're trying to sell the notion that in Australia businesses have duct tape over their mouths, and they can't publish messages which advocate positions that they think benefit them? Fucking nonsense.

You have so much hatred for Obama and the democrats, that you are totally blinded to the failings of the Republicans that you support.

Not even close. I oppose the Republicans on many issues. I oppose Obama's policies. However, Obama isn't concerned with stopping organizations influencing politics. He's only concerned with CERTAIN organizations not influencing politics. The ones that garner votes for him are o.k. in his book.

Your silly little "Hey! What's that over there? ------->" games are transparent for all to see. Asking for evidence that the sun rises, when you 1 - should be able to see it with your own eyes; and 2 - you could EASILY research this yourself;

Ah, the Creationist "the evidence is all around us" trope, followed by the "go do the research" trope. One, it's not obvious because you're wrong, and, two, it's your argument, you back it up. If you don't want to, that's fine. It will just stand as an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. That which is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. C. Hitchens.

just shows how dishonest your intentions are here.

And, the trifecta of bullshit -- you follow it up with the Skepchick "ask me for evidence?!?!?? That means you're a troll!" -- right? Look, Rev, you made an assertion. I asked if you had any "evidence" to back it up, showing that the US is particularly beleaguered in this regard. You have oped to say "I's obvious!" and "you go look up the evidence yourself!" and "by even asking for evidence you're dishonest!"

If that's the ground you wish to defend, by all means, have at it.

And as for your "I'm not a Republican or a Democrat" bullshit... don't make us laugh. It's clear what party you support.

In this election, yes.

How stupid do you think we are?

We? Who's we? I can definitely expand upon how stupid I think YOU are. But, that would be against the rules.

You'll probably ask me for evidence that the sun rises, but i'm not going to give it.

Why wouldn't you? Let's assume arguendo that what I asked for was equivalent to asking for evidence that the sun rises. That would be the easiest thing in the world to provide. We could link to images and videos of the sun rising, and couple that with explanations of helocentrism, the aberration of starlight, sunlight reflecting off the moon, telescopic images, etc. There is a ton of easy evidence.

Now, it's interesting that you refer to evidence of the "sun rising" as your attempt to mock my request for evidence of what is "obvious" to you. You will note that for thousands of years, it was "obvious" to anyone looking around them that the sun itself "rose" in the east and "set" in the west by moving around an "obviously" stationary Earth. Yet people were not content with that, and they looked beyond the obvious and determined that what was counterintuitive was actually the true state of affairs. That the sun was the center of the solar system and the Earth revolved around it, and later, that they both revolved around the solar system's center of gravity.

Be honest here. The reason why your "not going to give it" is that you are asserting a statement of fact as true and you just want it taken as a given. You don't have any evidence for it, but you've latched onto a "belief" in it and you've become emotionally invested in its truth, so you can't help but get rabidly upset at the mere request for your evidentiary basis for the assertion. Rather than be honest and say, "I really don't have any evidence, but I think it's true anyway," you pretend that there are mountains of evidence that is so easy to obtain that it's like the evidence of the sun "rising" -- so, the ease of access to that evidence means you'd rather waste time lambasting me for even asking for it, rather than just go ahead, do the 3 second google search, and post a link.

You as well as everyone else knows that you've been bitching about (to paraphrase) 'the democrats being in government for more than 50% of the time over the last 100 years (or whatever timeframe you mentioned)' and that lament has been used as a placeholder for all the woes of the American economy (and presumably society).

Yes, of course. Because it's true. I did not, however, assert that they were solely to blame for all of our ills. What I did was assert that they weren't blameless. I was countering the notion that the Democrats and folks like you sell all the time, which is that the Republicans have "had their chance" and that "we've done it their way for decades now, so now it's time for our way..." -- those talking points are utterly ridiculous, because they're based on the assumption that the Democrats were innocent bystanders for the last 75 years, calling for sanity while the Republicans ran roughshod, creating a libertarian wonderland devoid of regulations.

As i've said before: Debating with you is a waste of time. I won't be wasting that time, other than to provide short rebuttals of your nonsense.

Do as you please. I'll just note again that you just spent more time telling my why you won't back up your claim with evidence than you say it would take for you to provide the evidence yourself. That speaks volumes.

[pErvinalia]

I've ignored the rest of your reply, because it is the same old same old... But couldn't pass this one up:

And, aren't corporate organizations part of the democratic process? I mean, they are part of the country, and they have a stake in what happens, don't they?

Democracy is about people, not corporations. There's a hint in the Latin or Greek root of the word.

Of course, and corporations are associations of people.

Way to fail.

I am correct. You are just flapping your gums wildly.

What are the American Atheists, Inc. or the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc? Associations of people who filed papers with a State to adopt the corporate form, instead of a partnership or some other form.

I'm gong to put this dickery down to mistake, rather than dishonesty. If you hadn't got your chop chop scissor out so quick, you would see that the FOLLOWING SENTENCES explain why it was a "fail". The fail isn't supposed to represent the notion that corporations aren't associations of people. The fail is represented by the fact that just because something is an association of people, it is therefore a valid representation of democracy. As I said, the military is an "association of people". You make a fair point below about them being an arm of the government, but that's not what you stated originally. You made the claim that corporations should be considered a part of the democratic process because they are "associations of people".

Militaries, likewise, are associations of people.

Militaries are arms of the government.

Fair point. You should therefore be clear about what types of associations of people you feel can be a valid part of the democratic process.

just like allowing corporations to influence political decisions and voting (via funding false election advertising and running scare campaigns).

Look -- if corporations can't publish political messages, then we'd have to make the New York Times, Inc. (INCORPORATED) editorial page illegal.

Journalism is protected speech. I assume that that includes the editorial pages. I don't see why it shouldn't, as long as the editorial pages are only a small part of their journalistic output.

And if corporations can't publish political messages, then Moveon.org, Inc. ought to be prohibited from publishing its political messages too. And, if Hooters, Inc. wants to oppose new waitress clothing regulations in the State of X, then they ought to be able to do it, too, shouldn't they? Saying a corporation could not legally publish political messages would mean that Hooters, Inc., or Wolf's Farmers Market, Inc. couldn't publicize their views to explain to the public why they are for or against some political measure.

Your position on this is not well thought out.

What I and a lot of people are concerned with is the distortion of democratic processes by huge blocks of money. And it's clear that the larger a corporation is, the more potential political clout it has. THAT's the point to take from this. Do you or do you not agree that large sums of money distorting political decisions (of the politicians primarily) is a bad thing? If yes, then we agree. If no, then there is no point taking this any further. I.e. In my view, anyone who doesn't understand the corruption large sums of money has on democracy, isn't at a level of understanding sufficient enough for sensible debate.

You are so butthurt that someone would dare criticise the US,

I criticize the US all the time. I'm not butthurt about it at all. I'm just pointing out where you are not thinking this through clearly. You seem to think "corporation" means only "Bain Capital, Inc." or "Wal-Mart" and you don't like what those corporations stand for, so you say "they aren't people, and they shouldn't be able to publish political opinions." Well, you're not thinking it through, because if "corporations" are legally prohibited from publishing political messages, then so too will other organizations that you may like, like the American Civil Liberties Union, Inc., American Atheists, Inc., People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., Moveon.org, Inc., The DailyKos, Inc., New York Times, Inc., and MSNBC, Inc.

I've addressed all these points above. So, yes, I have thought this through. It's not "corporations" per se, it's money that is the problem. It just so happens, though, that large corporations have more money than small corporations and non-profit and/or non-incorporated organisations.

Think it through for a fucking second, man.

Lol. You need to take some of your own advice there, champ.

that you are blinding yourself to the blindingly obvious problems of your political system.

There you go again with the "your" political system nonsense. Look, you haven't established that other western republics are much different.

Why on earth would I do that? This is a thread about US politics. Whatever state foreign democracies are in is totally irrelevant to the assessment of whether the US' democracy is free and fair. You are clearly shitty that outsiders are daring to criticise your system. It's juvenile, mate. Grow up.

You're trying to sell the notion that in Australia businesses have duct tape over their mouths, and they can't publish messages which advocate positions that they think benefit them? Fucking nonsense.

You're spot on with that last sentence. Please show me where I'm trying to sell any such notion? God, you are really pissed that some outsider could dare to criticise your system, aren't you? Smells of American Exceptionalism to me.

You have so much hatred for Obama and the democrats, that you are totally blinded to the failings of the Republicans that you support.

Not even close. I oppose the Republicans on many issues. I oppose Obama's policies. However, Obama isn't concerned with stopping organizations influencing politics. He's only concerned with CERTAIN organizations not influencing politics. The ones that garner votes for him are o.k. in his book.

Lol. This just proves my point. The fact that you think the republicans are any different to this just shows how blinkered you are.

Your silly little "Hey! What's that over there? ------->" games are transparent for all to see. Asking for evidence that the sun rises, when you 1 - should be able to see it with your own eyes; and 2 - you could EASILY research this yourself;

Ah, the Creationist "the evidence is all around us" trope, followed by the "go do the research" trope. One, it's not obvious because you're wrong, and, two, it's your argument, you back it up. If you don't want to, that's fine. It will just stand as an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. That which is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. C. Hitchens.

You can interpret it however you like. See further below for my interpretation.

just shows how dishonest your intentions are here.

And, the trifecta of bullshit -- you follow it up with the Skepchick "ask me for evidence?!?!?? That means you're a troll!" -- right? Look, Rev, you made an assertion. I asked if you had any "evidence" to back it up, showing that the US is particularly beleaguered in this regard. You have oped to say "I's obvious!" and "you go look up the evidence yourself!" and "by even asking for evidence you're dishonest!"

If that's the ground you wish to defend, by all means, have at it.

See further below.

How stupid do you think we are?

We? Who's we?

Those of us in this thread who can see past your diversionary tactics.

You'll probably ask me for evidence that the sun rises, but i'm not going to give it.

Why wouldn't you? Let's assume arguendo that what I asked for was equivalent to asking for evidence that the sun rises. That would be the easiest thing in the world to provide. We could link to images and videos of the sun rising, and couple that with explanations of helocentrism, the aberration of starlight, sunlight reflecting off the moon, telescopic images, etc. There is a ton of easy evidence.

The point isn't about the "ease" of providing evidence. It's about an assessment of the honesty of someone asking for evidence that the sun rises. If you came up to me and asked me for evidence that the sun rises, I'd think you were either insane or taking the piss. And if we were in the middle of an argument where I was making the claim that the sun causes skin damage, and you replied with a request for evidence that the sun rises, I would rightly be able to assume you were attempting a diversion tactic. That's my interpretation of what's going on here. And it's not just based on this one example. You are constantly doing it with the diversion away from criticism of the US system with a "yeah but whaddabout Australia?".

Now, it's interesting that you refer to evidence of the "sun rising" as your attempt to mock my request for evidence of what is "obvious" to you. You will note that for thousands of years, it was "obvious" to anyone looking around them that the sun itself "rose" in the east and "set" in the west by moving around an "obviously" stationary Earth. Yet people were not content with that, and they looked beyond the obvious and determined that what was counterintuitive was actually the true state of affairs. That the sun was the center of the solar system and the Earth revolved around it, and later, that they both revolved around the solar system's center of gravity.

Nice try.

Be honest here. The reason why your "not going to give it" is that you are asserting a statement of fact as true and you just want it taken as a given. You don't have any evidence for it, but you've latched onto a "belief" in it and you've become emotionally invested in its truth, so you can't help but get rabidly upset at the mere request for your evidentiary basis for the assertion. Rather than be honest and say, "I really don't have any evidence, but I think it's true anyway," you pretend that there are mountains of evidence that is so easy to obtain that it's like the evidence of the sun "rising" -- so, the ease of access to that evidence means you'd rather waste time lambasting me for even asking for it, rather than just go ahead, do the 3 second google search, and post a link.

As I said, it's not the "ease of access" that is the issue. It is you claiming to have never seen the sun rise that puts either your sanity or honesty in question.

You as well as everyone else knows that you've been bitching about (to paraphrase) 'the democrats being in government for more than 50% of the time over the last 100 years (or whatever timeframe you mentioned)' and that lament has been used as a placeholder for all the woes of the American economy (and presumably society).

Yes, of course. Because it's true.

Oh, ok then. But your definitely not a republican.

I did not, however, assert that they were solely to blame for all of our ills. What I did was assert that they weren't blameless. I was countering the notion that the Democrats and folks like you sell all the time, which is that the Republicans have "had their chance" and that "we've done it their way for decades now, so now it's time for our way..." -- those talking points are utterly ridiculous, because they're based on the assumption that the Democrats were innocent bystanders for the last 75 years, calling for sanity while the Republicans ran roughshod, creating a libertarian wonderland devoid of regulations.

Jesus, you are off in lala land. Please show me where I tried to "sell" the "notion... that the Republicans have 'had their chance' blah blah blah". This ought to be good.

[Coito ergo sum]

Way to fail.

I am correct. You are just flapping your gums wildly.

What are the American Atheists, Inc. or the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc? Associations of people who filed papers with a State to adopt the corporate form, instead of a partnership or some other form.

I'm gong to put this dickery down to mistake, rather than dishonesty. If you hadn't got your chop chop scissor out so quick, you would see that the FOLLOWING SENTENCES explain why it was a "fail". The fail isn't supposed to represent the notion that corporations aren't associations of people. The fail is represented by the fact that just because something is an association of people, it is therefore a valid representation of democracy. As I said, the military is an "association of people". You make a fair point below about them being an arm of the government, but that's not what you stated originally. You made the claim that corporations should be considered a part of the democratic process because they are "associations of people".[/quote]

It thought it went without saying that departments of the government aren't political actors, since that obviously begs the political question. They aren't associations of private citizens -- they are government employees.

The issue at hand was your statement that corporations ought not be permitted to "influence" the political process or publish their political views. Since at bottom, a corporation is just a collection of private individuals who have associated themselves and adopted the corporate form, they ought to be allowed to voice their collective opinion. It's no different than a 20 people getting together to pool their money, as a partnership, to publish an ad in the Times supporting or opposing abortion, or a political candidate.

Militaries, likewise, are associations of people.

Militaries are arms of the government.

Fair point. You should therefore be clear about what types of associations of people you feel can be a valid part of the democratic process.

The government is not really an association of people. The government is the government and the military is a branch or department of the government. It's what the people are debating about.

just like allowing corporations to influence political decisions and voting (via funding false election advertising and running scare campaigns).

Look -- if corporations can't publish political messages, then we'd have to make the New York Times, Inc. (INCORPORATED) editorial page illegal.

Journalism is protected speech. I assume that that includes the editorial pages. I don't see why it shouldn't, as long as the editorial pages are only a small part of their journalistic output.

Freedom of speech is not a privilege limited to journalists, it belongs to bloggers, forums, people standing on soapboxes in the public square, and Joe's Pizza, Inc.

And, your caveat that editorialism should only be a small part of journalistic output is apropos of nothing. If some group wanted to create a 100% editorial publication -- kind of like the Nation or the American Spectator are nearly 100% slanted one way or the the other -- that's freedom of speech too.

And if corporations can't publish political messages, then Moveon.org, Inc. ought to be prohibited from publishing its political messages too. And, if Hooters, Inc. wants to oppose new waitress clothing regulations in the State of X, then they ought to be able to do it, too, shouldn't they? Saying a corporation could not legally publish political messages would mean that Hooters, Inc., or Wolf's Farmers Market, Inc. couldn't publicize their views to explain to the public why they are for or against some political measure.

Your position on this is not well thought out.

What I and a lot of people are concerned with is the distortion of democratic processes by huge blocks of money. And it's clear that the larger a corporation is, the more potential political clout it has. THAT's the point to take from this. Do you or do you not agree that large sums of money distorting political decisions (of the politicians primarily) is a bad thing? If yes, then we agree. If no, then there's is no point taking this any further. I.e. In my view, anyone who doesn't understand the corruption large sums of money has on democracy, isn't at a level of understanding sufficient enough for sensible debate.

Let's be clear then, that we're changing the debate. No longer are you referring to "corporations" not being able to publish their views -- you're now suggesting a means test.

I will answer your question straightforward. Yes, large sums - and small sums - distort political decisions. Everyone -- even discussing issues here on rationalia, can be said to "distort political decisions" to the extent that we can influence others to change their votes, or to the extent that our speech is heard and influences to that extent. Obviously, people with money to buy full page ads in national publications, like Moveon.org,Inc., PETA, Inc., and Wal-Mart, will be able to distort the political decisions one way or the other by their influence.

Is it a bad thing? That depends on one's point of view. One who supports Moveon.org, Inc. would probably not think it's a bad thing if their publications influence politics, and they wouldn't think of it as a "distortion" at all. They would think of it as successfully getting their point across.

In my view, the problem is not in the voices being heard -- people with money can buy more things, and if they want to host a bigger website which can sustain more traffic than a poorer person, well, that's the breaks. However, there is a problem, in my view, in large blocks of money "buying" votes. If we could have a serious proposal that would limit the, essentially, open graft that politicians engage in, that would go a long way to helping things.

You can't have a sensible debate by merely pointing out that large sums of money influence politics. Of course it can, depending on how it is used. A sensible debate from that point would be to discuss what to do about it. What NOT to do about it is to say "ok, corporations can't spend money on publishing political messages." Anyone who adopts that position would be too ignorant to hold a sensible discussion on the subject.

You are so butthurt that someone would dare criticise the US,

I criticize the US all the time. I'm not butthurt about it at all. I'm just pointing out where you are not thinking this through clearly. You seem to think "corporation" means only "Bain Capital, Inc." or "Wal-Mart" and you don't like what those corporations stand for, so you say "they aren't people, and they shouldn't be able to publish political opinions." Well, you're not thinking it through, because if "corporations" are legally prohibited from publishing political messages, then so too will other organizations that you may like, like the American Civil Liberties Union, Inc., American Atheists, Inc., People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., Moveon.org, Inc., The DailyKos, Inc., New York Times, Inc., and MSNBC, Inc.

I've addressed all these points above. So, yes, I have thought this through. It's not "corporations" per se, it's money that is the problem. It just so happens, though, that large corporations have more money than small corporations and non-profit and/or non-incorporated organisations.

Non-profit doesn't mean "poor" or "doesn't have much money." That's for damn sure. PETA has many millions of dollars to spend. They are a corporation.

And, many non-incorporated associations have tons of money, like Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, Limited partnerships, etc. Kinder Morgan is a partnership that owns like 40,000 miles of pipeline.

Face it, what you're trying to edge around here, and parse out, is the idea that you think "for profit" corporations ought not be permitted to publish their views. You seem to be willing to make an exception for small corporations.

Think it through for a fucking second, man.

Lol. You need to take some of your own advice there, champ.

that you are blinding yourself to the blindingly obvious problems of your political system.

There you go again with the "your" political system nonsense. Look, you haven't established that other western republics are much different.

Why on earth would I do that? This is a thread about US politics. You are clearly shitty than outsiders are daring to criticise your system. It's juvenile, mate. Grow up.

Well, you made the assertion that they weren't the same. You said the US was much worse in that regard. I took issue with that. That's what I asked for evidence of, and you refused.

You're trying to sell the notion that in Australia businesses have duct tape over their mouths, and they can't publish messages which advocate positions that they think benefit them? Fucking nonsense.

You're spot on with that last sentence. Please show me where I'm trying to sell any such notion? God, you are really pissed that some outsider could dare to criticise your system, aren't you? Smells of American Exceptionalism to me.

You said the US was worse in that regard. At least I thought that's what you said. Maybe not. You can clarify.

Criticize the system all you want. The problem isn't with criticism. It's with ignorant, uninformed criticism, which is what you are bringing to the table.

You have so much hatred for Obama and the democrats, that you are totally blinded to the failings of the Republicans that you support.

Not even close. I oppose the Republicans on many issues. I oppose Obama's policies. However, Obama isn't concerned with stopping organizations influencing politics. He's only concerned with CERTAIN organizations not influencing politics. The ones that garner votes for him are o.k. in his book.

Lol. This just proves my point. The fact that you think the republicans are any different to this just shows how blinkered you are.

Well, in this regard there is a difference, because the Republicans are not calling for limitations on free speech in this arena, but the Democrats are. In other arenas, the reverse may be true. But, on this issue, there is a difference. The Republicans are not trying to stop any organizations from publishing their views. Well, maybe they are -- you can point it out where it is happening, and I would be pleased to be educated, and I would oppose any such measures as vehemently.

Your silly little "Hey! What's that over there? ------->" games are transparent for all to see. Asking for evidence that the sun rises, when you 1 - should be able to see it with your own eyes; and 2 - you could EASILY research this yourself;

Ah, the Creationist "the evidence is all around us" trope, followed by the "go do the research" trope. One, it's not obvious because you're wrong, and, two, it's your argument, you back it up. If you don't want to, that's fine. It will just stand as an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. That which is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. C. Hitchens.

You can interpret it however you like. See further below for my interpretation.

It's what you said.

just shows how dishonest your intentions are here.

And, the trifecta of bullshit -- you follow it up with the Skepchick "ask me for evidence?!?!?? That means you're a troll!" -- right? Look, Rev, you made an assertion. I asked if you had any "evidence" to back it up, showing that the US is particularly beleaguered in this regard. You have oped to say "I's obvious!" and "you go look up the evidence yourself!" and "by even asking for evidence you're dishonest!"

If that's the ground you wish to defend, by all means, have at it.

See further below.

How stupid do you think we are?

We? Who's we?

Those of us in this thread who can see past your diversionary tactics.

You'll probably ask me for evidence that the sun rises, but i'm not going to give it.

Why wouldn't you? Let's assume arguendo that what I asked for was equivalent to asking for evidence that the sun rises. That would be the easiest thing in the world to provide. We could link to images and videos of the sun rising, and couple that with explanations of helocentrism, the aberration of starlight, sunlight reflecting off the moon, telescopic images, etc. There is a ton of easy evidence.

The point isn't about the "ease" of providing evidence. It's about an assessment of the honesty of someone asking for evidence that the sun rises. If you came up to me and asked me for evidence that the sun rises, I'd think you were either insane or taking the piss. And if we were in the middle of an argument where I was making the claim that the sun causes skin damage, and you replied with a request for evidence that the sun rises, I would rightly be able to assume you were attempting a diversion tactic. That's my interpretation of what's going on here. And it's not just based on this one example. You are constantly doing it with the diversion away from criticism of the US system with a "yeah but whaddabout Australia?".

That's just bullshit. You made an assertion. I asked for evidence of THAT ASSERTION. I didn't divert to some other issue.

You're the one who SAID the US had a particularly bad problem in this regard. If you don't think that, fine, then clarify. If you do, I'd like to see your proof. If you don't have any, say so. If, however, it's so fucking easy to produce, then just produce it.

Now, it's interesting that you refer to evidence of the "sun rising" as your attempt to mock my request for evidence of what is "obvious" to you. You will note that for thousands of years, it was "obvious" to anyone looking around them that the sun itself "rose" in the east and "set" in the west by moving around an "obviously" stationary Earth. Yet people were not content with that, and they looked beyond the obvious and determined that what was counterintuitive was actually the true state of affairs. That the sun was the center of the solar system and the Earth revolved around it, and later, that they both revolved around the solar system's center of gravity.

Nice try.

Be honest here. The reason why your "not going to give it" is that you are asserting a statement of fact as true and you just want it taken as a given. You don't have any evidence for it, but you've latched onto a "belief" in it and you've become emotionally invested in its truth, so you can't help but get rabidly upset at the mere request for your evidentiary basis for the assertion. Rather than be honest and say, "I really don't have any evidence, but I think it's true anyway," you pretend that there are mountains of evidence that is so easy to obtain that it's like the evidence of the sun "rising" -- so, the ease of access to that evidence means you'd rather waste time lambasting me for even asking for it, rather than just go ahead, do the 3 second google search, and post a link.

As I said, it's not the "ease of access" that is the issue. It is you claiming to have never seen the sun rise that puts either your sanity or honesty in question.

What a joke and a half. Lame.

You made an assertion, and I asked for back-up of that assertion. You claim that my request for said evidence means I'm dishonest?

Go fuck yourself.

You as well as everyone else knows that you've been bitching about (to paraphrase) 'the democrats being in government for more than 50% of the time over the last 100 years (or whatever timeframe you mentioned)' and that lament has been used as a placeholder for all the woes of the American economy (and presumably society).

Yes, of course. Because it's true.

Oh, ok then. But your definitely not a republican.

Pointing out that the Democrats have held the Presidency 50% of the time and controlled the House for 2/3 of that time period is just stating a fact. It doesn't make me a Republican or a Democrat.

And, even if I was a Republican, which I am not, but so what? You can't discuss an issue with someone you think is a Republican?

I did not, however, assert that they were solely to blame for all of our ills. What I did was assert that they weren't blameless. I was countering the notion that the Democrats and folks like you sell all the time, which is that the Republicans have "had their chance" and that "we've done it their way for decades now, so now it's time for our way..." -- those talking points are utterly ridiculous, because they're based on the assumption that the Democrats were innocent bystanders for the last 75 years, calling for sanity while the Republicans ran roughshod, creating a libertarian wonderland devoid of regulations.

Jesus, you are off in lala land. Please show me where I tried to "sell" the "notion... that the Republicans have 'had their chance' blah blah blah". This ought to be good.

I didn't say you did. I said "Democrats" and "folks like you."

I would be willing to bet that you have made the argument that we've lived under the Republican method for decades, and we've tried Republican deregulation, so that's all "been tried" before, but I can't be arsed to go search your posts for it. So, that's why I referred to Democrats, and folks "like" you." I freely admit I don't know if you've made that argument. You can clarify whether that's your position or not, if you like. If not, don't.

[pErvinalia]

edit: screwed up quotes

[Drewish]

Holy TLDR Batman!

[pErvinalia]

Way to fail.

I am correct. You are just flapping your gums wildly.

What are the American Atheists, Inc. or the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc? Associations of people who filed papers with a State to adopt the corporate form, instead of a partnership or some other form.

I'm gong to put this dickery down to mistake, rather than dishonesty. If you hadn't got your chop chop scissor out so quick, you would see that the FOLLOWING SENTENCES explain why it was a "fail". The fail isn't supposed to represent the notion that corporations aren't associations of people. The fail is represented by the fact that just because something is an association of people, it is therefore a valid representation of democracy. As I said, the military is an "association of people". You make a fair point below about them being an arm of the government, but that's not what you stated originally. You made the claim that corporations should be considered a part of the democratic process because they are "associations of people".

It thought it went without saying that departments of the government aren't political actors, since that obviously begs the political question. They aren't associations of private citizens -- they are government employees.

The issue at hand was your statement that corporations ought not be permitted to "influence" the political process or publish their political views. Since at bottom, a corporation is just a collection of private individuals who have associated themselves and adopted the corporate form, they ought to be allowed to voice their collective opinion. It's no different than a 20 people getting together to pool their money, as a partnership, to publish an ad in the Times supporting or opposing abortion, or a political candidate.

Of course it is different. This is just naive. The "people" in the corporation are really the shareholders. As far as I know, the majority of private shareholdings are in trusts or funds. That is, the people aren't intimately connected with (or even aware of) the companies they are investing in. This isn't a group of people pooling their political voice together. They are investing for economic reasons, not political.

And even if we accepted your characterisation of corps, which I don't, why should the shareholders in those corps get in effect multiple votes, when compared to those who aren't shareholders? How would that be a fair spread of democratic power?

And if corporations can't publish political messages, then Moveon.org, Inc. ought to be prohibited from publishing its political messages too. And, if Hooters, Inc. wants to oppose new waitress clothing regulations in the State of X, then they ought to be able to do it, too, shouldn't they? Saying a corporation could not legally publish political messages would mean that Hooters, Inc., or Wolf's Farmers Market, Inc. couldn't publicize their views to explain to the public why they are for or against some political measure.

Your position on this is not well thought out.

What I and a lot of people are concerned with is the distortion of democratic processes by huge blocks of money. And it's clear that the larger a corporation is, the more potential political clout it has. THAT's the point to take from this. Do you or do you not agree that large sums of money distorting political decisions (of the politicians primarily) is a bad thing? If yes, then we agree. If no, then there's is no point taking this any further. I.e. In my view, anyone who doesn't understand the corruption large sums of money has on democracy, isn't at a level of understanding sufficient enough for sensible debate.

Let's be clear then, that we're changing the debate. No longer are you referring to "corporations" not being able to publish their views -- you're now suggesting a means test.

I haven't actually suggested anything. Before I would even think of spending my time suggesting anything to you, I would need to know that you are approaching the debate honestly and had the level of understanding that I mention above.

I will answer your question straightforward. Yes, large sums - and small sums - distort political decisions. Everyone -- even discussing issues here on rationalia, can be said to "distort political decisions" to the extent that we can influence others to change their votes, or to the extent that our speech is heard and influences to that extent. Obviously, people with money to buy full page ads in national publications, like Moveon.org,Inc., PETA, Inc., and Wal-Mart, will be able to distort the political decisions one way or the other by their influence.

Is it a bad thing? That depends on one's point of view. One who supports Moveon.org, Inc. would probably not think it's a bad thing if their publications influence politics, and they wouldn't think of it as a "distortion" at all. They would think of it as successfully getting their point across.

In my view, the problem is not in the voices being heard -- people with money can buy more things, and if they want to host a bigger website which can sustain more traffic than a poorer person, well, that's the breaks. However, there is a problem, in my view, in large blocks of money "buying" votes. If we could have a serious proposal that would limit the, essentially, open graft that politicians engage in, that would go a long way to helping things.

You can't have a sensible debate by merely pointing out that large sums of money influence politics. Of course it can, depending on how it is used. A sensible debate from that point would be to discuss what to do about it. What NOT to do about it is to say "ok, corporations can't spend money on publishing political messages." Anyone who adopts that position would be too ignorant to hold a sensible discussion on the subject.

Well, like I said, it's not worth discussing anything in depth until we get to the point that you've thankfully finally arrived at now. Two points on what you've said above: 1 - you haven't acknowledged that large corps have more money at their disposal (and a greater functional interest as well) than smaller and/or non-incorporated entities. Hence your continual focus on MoveOn.org makes me question your honesty again. Second point is what I discussed above - corps aren't free political groupings of people. They are economic bodies that have too large an "agency" problem for one to be able to say the owners (i.e. shareholders) are supportive of the political opinions of the executive board.

A further point to make is that the other obvious problem is to do with donations by individuals. Once again, it is the large blocks of money that really matter here. What a situation like that (and in a way similarly for the corps) ends up equating to is a democracy essentially built on the concept of $1 = 1 vote, as opposed to 1 person = 1 vote.

You are so butthurt that someone would dare criticise the US,

I criticize the US all the time. I'm not butthurt about it at all. I'm just pointing out where you are not thinking this through clearly. You seem to think "corporation" means only "Bain Capital, Inc." or "Wal-Mart" and you don't like what those corporations stand for, so you say "they aren't people, and they shouldn't be able to publish political opinions." Well, you're not thinking it through, because if "corporations" are legally prohibited from publishing political messages, then so too will other organizations that you may like, like the American Civil Liberties Union, Inc., American Atheists, Inc., People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., Moveon.org, Inc., The DailyKos, Inc., New York Times, Inc., and MSNBC, Inc.

I've addressed all these points above. So, yes, I have thought this through. It's not "corporations" per se, it's money that is the problem. It just so happens, though, that large corporations have more money than small corporations and non-profit and/or non-incorporated organisations.

Non-profit doesn't mean "poor" or "doesn't have much money." That's for damn sure. PETA has many millions of dollars to spend. They are a corporation.

And, many non-incorporated associations have tons of money, like Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, Limited partnerships, etc. Kinder Morgan is a partnership that owns like 40,000 miles of pipeline.

Face it, what you're trying to edge around here, and parse out, is the idea that you think "for profit" corporations ought not be permitted to publish their views. You seem to be willing to make an exception for small corporations.

For the nth time, what I have a problem with is large blocks of money distorting democracy. Ultimately it doesn't matter whether that comes from a giant corp, a small corp, a non-profit or an individual. But the reality of the matter is that it usually DOES come from a giant corp (and now in more recent elections we are seeing more wild sums coming from individuals).

that you are blinding yourself to the blindingly obvious problems of your political system.

There you go again with the "your" political system nonsense. Look, you haven't established that other western republics are much different.

Why on earth would I do that? This is a thread about US politics. You are clearly shitty that outsiders are daring to criticise your system. It's juvenile, mate. Grow up.

Well, you made the assertion that they weren't the same. You said the US was much worse in that regard. I took issue with that. That's what I asked for evidence of, and you refused.

As I said, that's just you throwing a lame "Hey! What's that over there?--------->" diversion. As I said following that, what the rest of the world is doing has no bearing on the assessment of whether your democracy is open and fair.

You're trying to sell the notion that in Australia businesses have duct tape over their mouths, and they can't publish messages which advocate positions that they think benefit them? Fucking nonsense.

You're spot on with that last sentence. Please show me where I'm trying to sell any such notion? God, you are really pissed that some outsider could dare to criticise your system, aren't you? Smells of American Exceptionalism to me.

You said the US was worse in that regard. At least I thought that's what you said. Maybe not. You can clarify.

No, I think i'll let my statements stand on their own. I'll "clarify" by ridiculing you after the fact when you go about making shit up like you just did there.

Criticize the system all you want. The problem isn't with criticism. It's with ignorant, uninformed criticism, which is what you are bringing to the table.

Or you just don't like people criticising the US. Look, it's not a problem that is unique to you. It's been happening for as long as the internet has been around (it's happening in the gun thread right now). Conservatives getting all indignant about some lowly non-American criticising their grand democracy. It's pathetic to watch. It's American Exceptionalism writ large across the internet.

You have so much hatred for Obama and the democrats, that you are totally blinded to the failings of the Republicans that you support.

Not even close. I oppose the Republicans on many issues. I oppose Obama's policies. However, Obama isn't concerned with stopping organizations influencing politics. He's only concerned with CERTAIN organizations not influencing politics. The ones that garner votes for him are o.k. in his book.

Lol. This just proves my point. The fact that you think the republicans are any different to this just shows how blinkered you are.

Well, in this regard there is a difference, because the Republicans are not calling for limitations on free speech in this arena, but the Democrats are. In other arenas, the reverse may be true. But, on this issue, there is a difference. The Republicans are not trying to stop any organizations from publishing their views. Well, maybe they are -- you can point it out where it is happening, and I would be pleased to be educated, and I would oppose any such measures as vehemently.

I'm not going to hunt around for examples because, aside from the questions about your honesty in this debate that I have raised earlier, it's proving to be a far more rewarding experience for me to interact with you this way.

So, to move the discussion on, I'd ask you - Why is it you think the Dems do this but apparently not the Repubs. Do you think the repubs are inherently more honest? Aside from any evidence (of which i've seen heaps concerning the cronyism of both sides), I'm interested in why someone would trust one lot over the other. They both have such a bad record for honesty.

Your silly little "Hey! What's that over there? ------->" games are transparent for all to see. Asking for evidence that the sun rises, when you 1 - should be able to see it with your own eyes; and 2 - you could EASILY research this yourself;

Ah, the Creationist "the evidence is all around us" trope, followed by the "go do the research" trope. One, it's not obvious because you're wrong, and, two, it's your argument, you back it up. If you don't want to, that's fine. It will just stand as an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. That which is offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. C. Hitchens.

You can interpret it however you like. See further below for my interpretation.

It's what you said.

No, that's your interpretation of what I said. I show clearly below that there is another valid interpretation. You can take it or leave it, I don't really care.

You'll probably ask me for evidence that the sun rises, but i'm not going to give it.

Why wouldn't you? Let's assume arguendo that what I asked for was equivalent to asking for evidence that the sun rises. That would be the easiest thing in the world to provide. We could link to images and videos of the sun rising, and couple that with explanations of helocentrism, the aberration of starlight, sunlight reflecting off the moon, telescopic images, etc. There is a ton of easy evidence.

The point isn't about the "ease" of providing evidence. It's about an assessment of the honesty of someone asking for evidence that the sun rises. If you came up to me and asked me for evidence that the sun rises, I'd think you were either insane or taking the piss. And if we were in the middle of an argument where I was making the claim that the sun causes skin damage, and you replied with a request for evidence that the sun rises, I would rightly be able to assume you were attempting a diversion tactic. That's my interpretation of what's going on here. And it's not just based on this one example. You are constantly doing it with the diversion away from criticism of the US system with a "yeah but whaddabout Australia?".

That's just bullshit. You made an assertion. I asked for evidence of THAT ASSERTION. I didn't divert to some other issue.

Again - by asking for evidence of the bleedingly obvious leads to only a few conclusions - none of which invokes honest debating. Well there is one other conclusion - either the person is insane or stupid. I don't think you are either of those.

You're the one who SAID the US had a particularly bad problem in this regard. If you don't think that, fine, then clarify. If you do, I'd like to see your proof. If you don't have any, say so. If, however, it's so fucking easy to produce, then just produce it.

I'm not going to produce it because this is too much fun. As I said, it's not the "ease" of getting evidence that is stopping me. It is the question about why you would ask for evidence of something virtually all educated and intelligent people know. But please keep trying to get it out of me. I'm actually enjoying the ridiculousness of this part of the argument. One of the reasons being - I and others have been there and done that with you before and evidence has little effect on you. You are clearly thoroughly biased and have great difficulty maintaining an objective view point. See your constant butthurt over criticism of the US as a prime example. See you rank partisanship that manifests when you detect an attack on the repubs, while failing to see that I am attacking the dems as well.

Be honest here. The reason why your "not going to give it" is that you are asserting a statement of fact as true and you just want it taken as a given. You don't have any evidence for it, but you've latched onto a "belief" in it and you've become emotionally invested in its truth, so you can't help but get rabidly upset at the mere request for your evidentiary basis for the assertion. Rather than be honest and say, "I really don't have any evidence, but I think it's true anyway," you pretend that there are mountains of evidence that is so easy to obtain that it's like the evidence of the sun "rising" -- so, the ease of access to that evidence means you'd rather waste time lambasting me for even asking for it, rather than just go ahead, do the 3 second google search, and post a link.

As I said, it's not the "ease of access" that is the issue. It is you claiming to have never seen the sun rise that puts either your sanity or honesty in question.

What a joke and a half. Lame.

You made an assertion, and I asked for back-up of that assertion. You claim that my request for said evidence means I'm dishonest?

Go fuck yourself.

Someone needs a hug.

I've given you the sun rising thing as an example of how one could come to question the sanity or honesty of a debating partner. I accept that you might not agree that the claim that the US political system is heavily distorted by giant corps and cronyism is equivalently obvious to the claim that the sun rises, but from my point of view the analogy fits. Hence why I'm am lead to the conclusion about your debating honesty in this case.

You as well as everyone else knows that you've been bitching about (to paraphrase) 'the democrats being in government for more than 50% of the time over the last 100 years (or whatever timeframe you mentioned)' and that lament has been used as a placeholder for all the woes of the American economy (and presumably society).

Yes, of course. Because it's true.

Oh, ok then. But your definitely not a republican.

Pointing out that the Democrats have held the Presidency 50% of the time and controlled the House for 2/3 of that time period is just stating a fact. It doesn't make me a Republican or a Democrat.

Um, I've bolded the relevant bit for you. Is this a "mistake" like the 'fail' thing, or are we looking at more signs of dishonesty here?

And, even if I was a Republican, which I am not, but so what? You can't discuss an issue with someone you think is a Republican?

Not one who lies about where his political affiliations/ideologies lie.

I did not, however, assert that they were solely to blame for all of our ills. What I did was assert that they weren't blameless. I was countering the notion that the Democrats and folks like you sell all the time, which is that the Republicans have "had their chance" and that "we've done it their way for decades now, so now it's time for our way..." -- those talking points are utterly ridiculous, because they're based on the assumption that the Democrats were innocent bystanders for the last 75 years, calling for sanity while the Republicans ran roughshod, creating a libertarian wonderland devoid of regulations.

Jesus, you are off in lala land. Please show me where I tried to "sell" the "notion... that the Republicans have 'had their chance' blah blah blah". This ought to be good.

I didn't say you did. I said "Democrats" and "folks like you."

What are you smoking? Yes, you did say "folks like you" (i.e. me). So, once again, where did I say what you claimed I say? If I didn't say it, then how can you equate me to those folks who do say it? Either way you come of dishonestly.

I would be willing to bet that you have made the argument that we've lived under the Republican method for decades, and we've tried Republican deregulation, so that's all "been tried" before, but I can't be arsed to go search your posts for it. So, that's why I referred to Democrats, and folks "like" you." I freely admit I don't know if you've made that argument. You can clarify whether that's your position or not, if you like. If not, don't.

I'm not in the business of justify your made up statements. I'd recommend the best course of action would be for you to simply stop making stuff up.

[pErvinalia]

Holy TLDR Batman!

I don't blame you! I nearly fell asleep writing it and trying to sort the freakin' blockquotes out.

[Coito ergo sum]

Rev, your constant accusations that I am being dishonest are not conducive to any sort of discussion. I'm sick and tired of your inability to think clearly, coupled with your desire to invent allegations of dishonesty to cast aspersions. I've been very candid about my political views, and I know you have read some of those detailed posts, because you responded to them. Yet, you continue to imply that I am a "conservative," when I am not and repeatedly accuse me of dishonesty, and lying.

Yours are the tactics of someone who wants to announce their view, declare it as obvious and irrefutable, and to cast all discussion and critique of what you say as dishonest or stupid. A prime example of your insistence that you don't have to back up your factual assertions with evidence, as long as you declare them to be obvious.

Your smug, self-righteous bullshit is wearisome. Come back when you're willing to actually address the issues, rather than play shell games.

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL -- so, Romney is a felon, for fraudulently remaining in control of Bain Capital while claiming not to really be in control of Bain Capital. Then, he murdered a guy's wife. And, now, he started Bain Capital with money from "death squads."

I fucking kid you not.... http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/08 ... th-squads/



Oh, yes, it's the Romney camp that's fighting dirty....

[Warren Dew]

Did you see the ad? The ad essentially says Romney killed Soptic's wife.

You know what it reminds me of? Willie Horton. I'm sure you remember that ad from 1988. I don't think this one is quite as bad, but I'll admit it's the same sort of message: irresponsible policy can produce lethal results. But as low as the Horton ad was, I never thought it was an unreasonable subject. Same for this.

The Horton ad was true, though, rather than false as this one is. Dukakis really was idiot enough to give vacations from prison to people who had been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. Basically there was nothing deterring Horton from doing what he did, as long as he avoided death penalty states.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ian, nobody said it was an "unreasonable subject." It's just a fucking lie. The subject is fine. But, they're lying and saying that Romney did something he didn't do.

And, with the lack of class of the incumbents shining through already, here is Biden invoking Ryan's dead father to question Ryan's "values" --- http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bid ... 49913.html